Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM model

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM model

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:31 am

Since the mainstream loves to claim that LCDM makes "testable predictions", yet they utterly ignore all their failed 'tests", I thought it might be useful and fun to start a list of all the failed predictions as they happen. Last month certainly wasn't kind to the LCDM model. Here's a few of the so called "tests" that it failed recently:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-secrets-universe.html

The team originally tuned their instrument to look later in cosmic time, but in 2015 decided to extend their search. "As soon as we switched our system to this lower range, we started seeing things that we felt might be a real signature," Rogers says. "We see this dip most strongly at about 78 megahertz, and that frequency corresponds to roughly 180 million years after the Big Bang," Rogers says. "In terms of a direct detection of a signal from the hydrogen gas itself, this has got to be the earliest."

The study also revealed that gas in the universe was probably much colder than expected (less than half the expected temperature). This suggests that either astrophysicists' theoretical efforts have overlooked something significant or that this may be the first evidence of non-standard physics: Specifically, that baryons (normal matter) may have interacted with dark matter and slowly lost energy to dark matter in the early universe, a concept that was originally proposed by Rennan Barkana of Tel Aviv University.


So, at a 180 million years after the supposed 'Big Bang' the gas in the universe is already less than half of it's "predicted" temperature (epic fail), yet somehow, as if by pure magic, we're supposed to believe that the CMB today is *exactly* the right temperature according to LCMD "predictions"? Oy Vey.

First LCDM proponents tell us that "dark matter" is presumed to be "dark" because it doesn't interact with light (heat) or ordinary matter which is how the LCDM model exactly matches the temperature and power spectrum of the CMB today, but yet we're also supposed to believe that dark matter *does* interact with ordinary matter to "cool off" the early universe, without having any adverse effect on the temperature or the power spectrum of the CMB today or their nucleosynthesis predictions? Make up your minds already!

This particular rationalization is a three for one ad hoc "miracle" modification. Somehow another set of unexplained miracles take place along the line so that even though dark matter isn't really dark as they originally "predicted", and the universe is less than half the right temperature at 180 million years, the temperature and power spectrum of the CMB is still *exactly* the right fit today. We miraculously have a perfect CMB fit today, even though the temperature of the early universe was less than half it's predicted value at 180 million years after the bang. The other miracle is that in spite of the temperature being less than half of it's predicted value, it has no effect at all on their nucleosynthesis predictions either. Ya right.

Then there was this gem of a failure last month too:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hubble-ya ... ysics.html

Explaining a Vexing Discrepancy

Riess outlined a few possible explanations for the mismatch, all related to the 95 percent of the universe that is shrouded in darkness. One possibility is that dark energy, already known to be accelerating the cosmos, may be shoving galaxies away from each other with even greater - or growing - strength. This means that the acceleration itself might not have a constant value in the universe but changes over time in the universe. Riess shared a Nobel Prize for the 1998 discovery of the accelerating universe.

Another idea is that the universe contains a new subatomic particle that travels close to the speed of light. Such speedy particles are collectively called "dark radiation" and include previously known particles like neutrinos, which are created in nuclear reactions and radioactive decays. Unlike a normal neutrino, which interacts by a subatomic force, this new particle would be affected only by gravity and is dubbed a "sterile neutrino."


So basically, since astronomers *assume* that redshift is caused by metaphysics rather than empirical physics, there's now about a 10 percent discrepancy between the expansion rate as it is calculated based on Planck data, and the metaphysical expansion rate as it is calculated by Hubble data, and the error rate of the later calculation has been reduced to about 2.5 percent. This means that there's only about 1 in 5000 chance that this isn't a "real" problem.

The first proposed "fix" for this problem is to claim that dark energy isn't just remaining constant during expansion, which is bad enough in terms of energy conservation, but rather to claim that 'dark energy' is "growing stronger" over time/distance/volume increases due to expansion.

The second proposed "fix" to this metaphysical kludge is to add yet *another* metaphysical fudge factor called "dark radiation" to the calculations, bringing the total number of invisible metaphysical fudge factors up to *five*, and relegating ordinary matter/energy to something *less* than it's currently measly 5 percent figure. Note also that the proposed 'sterile neutrino' fix has already been blown out of the water by the Ice Cube data:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... neutrinos/

The third proposed 'fix' suggested in the article would be to modify the metaphysical properties of the fudge factor known as "dark matter" in spite of the fact that dark matter has already failed 10's of billions of dollars worth of lab "tests" to date, and failed many other observational "tests" including another one earlier this month.

http://www.newsweek.com/whirling-galaxi ... ogy-797531

New research could undermine the standard cold dark matter model of cosmology. Scientists have found the galactic arrangement of Centaurus A, a massive galaxy 12 million light-years away from Earth, does not match up to predictions, joining the two other best-studied galaxies—the Milky Way and Andromeda—as so-called outliers.

This latest discovery, published today in Science, suggests these galaxies aren’t unusual after all. Instead, they could be the norm.


And yet again, the mainstream computer model "predictions" are falsified by observation.

And then of course that are some more dark matter "tests" that LCDM failed again recently. Not only have WIMP "tests" come up empty at LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T etc, axion models of dark matter have fared no better:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_s ... e_999.html

The results of the search turned out to be negative: no trace of the existence of axions with masses between 10-24 and 10-17 electronvolts were found (for comparison: the mass of an electron is more than half a million electronvolts). In addition, scientists managed to tighten the constraints imposed by theory on the interaction of axions with nucleons by 40 times. In the case of potential interactions with gluons, the restrictions have increased even more, more than one thousand-fold. So then, if axions do exist, in the current theoretical models they have fewer and fewer places to hide.


And that's on top of another failed "test" of the axion model a month earlier:

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-bound-axions.html

The search did not find the signature of axions. It does, however, set an important new limit on the strength of the coupling between axions and photons, and is able to rule out a substantial fraction of the possible future experiments that might be undertaken to detect axions.


Dark matter models (plural) have failed every experimental test to date, and many observational tests as well. The gaps keep getting smaller and smaller by the month.

I'm pretty sure that no hypothesis in the history of physics has enjoyed the benefit of so much funding and found exactly nothing. Dark matter models all share one thing in common: They all fail miserably to work in the lab.

What a convoluted metaphysical mess. The LCDM cosmology model is the single most 'ad hoc' cosmology theory ever invented! It's certainly failed far more "tests" than it's ever 'passed', including numerous major failures last month alone. Gah! What a piece of metaphysical crap.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

And another one bites the dust.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:42 pm

Even though this failed prediction was from several years ago, I think it's worth posting to this thread because it tends to support Dr. Scott's suggestion that dark matter filaments are just ordinary Birkeland currents and ordinary matter.

https://www.space.com/24431-dark-matter ... image.html

The researchers estimated that more than 10 times the amount of normal diffuse gas exists in the nebula than predicted.

"We think there may be more gas contained in the small, dense clumps within the cosmic web than is seen in our models," Cantalupo said. "These observations are challenging our understanding of intergalactic gas and giving us a new laboratory to test and refine our models."


The mainstream mathematical model was a whole order of magnitude *wrong* with respect to the amount of ordinary baryonic materials inside of these filaments. Oooopsy!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

The handwriting is on the wall...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:42 pm

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/new- ... tudy-finds

The more I think about it, the more I realize that this recent failed prediction doesn't bode well for the LCDM model. Something has to give and eventually the mainstream will have to deal with this issue. Their two methods of calculating expansion simply don't agree with one another, and the precision of these methods keeps getting better, so they really do seem to have a serious problem on their hands.

There are three main suspects to explain these results, all of which delve into the realms of unknown physics. Dark energy could be thrusting galaxies apart more strongly than expected and with growing strength; dark matter may interact more strongly with normal matter than predicted; or previously unidentified subatomic particles (‘dark radiation’) may be responsible.


It's would take a pretty significant modification of the attributes of dark energy, or dark matter, or the addition a yet *another* metaphysical construct to the LCDM model to get these two figures to agree with one another.

It's certainly not going to be easy to tinker around with the properties of DM without messing up mainstream nucleosynthesis predictions, and without destroying their fit to the CMB power spectrum. I don't think it's actually possible to wave a magic dark matter wand to fix this issue without the whole model going to hell in a hand basket.

It might be easier to claim that "dark energy" isn't just retaining constant density, but rather it's growing more powerful throughout expansion, but again, I don't think they can easily do that without messing up their fit to the CMB power spectrum and they have no explanation as to why it would do that in the first place.

In fact, I don't think there is a particularly acceptable solution that *doesn't* mess with their fit to the power spectrum.

It's been known for awhile that these two number didn't jive, but it's been assumed that one or more of the methods would turn out to be wrong and would need to be adjusted. That doesn't seem to be happening however. As their 'confidence' in each method grows, the expansion figures refuse to come into agreement.

Something eventually has to give, and regardless of how they try to 'fix' the issue, it's bound to be messy.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:10 pm

Maybe we can add the amount of wasted money?
It must be multiple billions by now.

And the number of PhDs wasting their lives on senseless projects.


Even my dog thinks he can find dark matter:

Image
Click for animation.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:40 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Maybe we can add the amount of wasted money?


LOL! That's surely enough wasted energy and money to fill the gaps of just about anything. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:28 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Even my dog thinks he can find dark matter:

Image
Click for animation.


LOL!
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:55 pm

[url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/01/satellite-galaxies-live-in-the-same-plane-as-their-hosts-defying-dark-matter-predictions/#27f847812971]Satellite Galaxies Live In A Single Plane, Defying Dark Matter Predictions[url]
While the article states: "Something is wrong with the very idea of dark matter",
the writer fails to see that DM fails on all other fronts too.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:59 am

Zyxzevn wrote:[url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/01/satellite-galaxies-live-in-the-same-plane-as-their-hosts-defying-dark-matter-predictions/#27f847812971]Satellite Galaxies Live In A Single Plane, Defying Dark Matter Predictions[url]
While the article states: "Something is wrong with the very idea of dark matter",
the writer fails to see that DM fails on all other fronts too.


I'm certain that if I had kept a complete list of every failed "test" and every failed prediction of LCDM since 2005 when I first became interested in EU/PC theory, this thread would be dozens of pages long by now. I've completely lost count of every failed DM lab test and observational failure over that timeline. Almost every week or two there's a new paper and article comes out where the astronomers are surprised or mystified by some observation in space.

I've spent about13 years now watching the mainstream fail one so called "test" after another after another. My favorite one was a much larger study of SN1A events that calculated the likelihood of acceleration (and dark energy) to be around 3 sigma at best, about 2 sigma short of an actual "discovery" of something new in physics.

https://www.space.com/34503-universe-ex ... nergy.html

"The evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call '3 sigma.' This is far short of the 5-sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance," co-author Subir Sarkar, of Oxford University in England, said in a statement.


Oooooopsy? Once the mainstream has handed out it's Nobel Prizes and thrown their big dinner parties and patted themselves on the back, like their big prize for supposedly 'discovering' dark energy, they can't just take them back and admit they screwed up, so they simply buried their collective heads in the sand and they pretended that this newer and *much* larger study of SN1A events never happened.

The mainstream has a *horrible* case of confirmation bias. They simply sweep every failed test right under the rug, and they utterly ignore all of the data that conflicts with their model. The EU/PC haters are so fearful of real physics that they go out of their way to *misrepresent* all EU/PC papers and models. It's just crazy and ignorant behavior.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:42 am

More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:55 pm



viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Over the last 13 years since I first became interested in EU/PC theory, I've seen every single laboratory 'test" of dark matter go down in flames. Not a single one of the billions of dollars of experiments on Earth have shown even a hint that the standard particle physics model is wrong, or provided any evidence that exotic forms of matter exist in nature. Every one of those billions of dollars worth of laboratory experiments have unanimously supported the standard particle physics model.

Over that same timeframe, I've also watched the mainstream mass estimation techniques for baryonic matter get blown away over a half dozen times now. They underestimated the amount of scattering in space by a factor of at least two for closer galaxies and their baryonic mass estimates are based on galaxy brightness. Published papers demonstrate that they underestimated the number of whole stars in galaxies by between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. They even underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies in that now infamous bullet cluster study. In the past five years they've also found two different halos of hot plasma and cooler gas which surround our own galaxy and which contain more mass than all the stars in our galaxy combined and which are located exactly where their "dark matter' models predict!

In addition, the exotic matter hypothesis has failed so many other observational "tests" I've lost count now. In short, their dark matter model has been falsified repeatedly, and the entire cosmological basis for their exotic matter claim has been obliterated by various studies over the past decade.

More recent, and much larger (more than ten time larger in fact) studies of SN1A events do *not* provide sufficient evidence to support the mainstream claim of any so called 'discovery" of dark energy, but alas they utterly refuse to acknowledge that serious problem. Rather, they simply pretend that 3 sigma evidence is sufficient evidence to support a "discovery" in physics, when in fact it is *not* sufficient evidence at all. Many early studies at LHC showed 3 sigma evidence to suggest something new might be happening, only to have larger data sets wipe out the statistical anomaly completely. They showed that this three sigma "fluke" was simply a statistical anomaly that was simply caused by an insufficient amount of data.

Guth's inflation theory also failed to correctly predict the hemispheric variations in the CMB data that was collected by the Planck satellite. Inflation also failed to predict the size of the 'holes' that we observe in some areas of the CMB.

Of course the whole concept of "space expansion" as a cause of photon redshift has *never* been, and could never be empirically demonstrated in the lab to begin with. Such beliefs would also require that light behaves radically differently in space than it does in lab experiments on Earth because light is known and documented to lose energy to a dusty plasma medium as a result of inelastic scattering.

The LCDM model of cosmology is without any doubt the single worst scientific model in the history of physics. It requires no less that four different types of metaphysical nonsense, and even with all those different metaphysical fudge factors, it still fails more "tests" than it actually passes.

This thread is destined to grow much longer as time passes.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:28 pm

As if on cue

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-galactic- ... -dark.html

Over the past several years, a consensus of sorts has emerged among astrophysicists to explain the large gamma ray emissions from the center of the Milky Way—they are likely due to dark matter particles (WIMPs) bumping into each other or with regular matter, it was theorized. But in this new effort, the researchers report evidence of another source, casting doubt on dark matter as the likely cause of the emissions.

The researchers have been studying data from the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, which has been in orbit for the past decade. They were able to see that the gamma rays actually mirrored the distribution of stars near the center of the galaxy—they were formed in the shape of an X, not a sphere as would be expected if it were caused by dark matter interactions.


So much for WIMP annihilation being the cause of gamma rays near the core of our galaxy.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM mod

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:17 am

Astronomers discover galaxies spin like clockwork
Astronomers have discovered that all galaxies rotate once every billion years, no matter how big they are.

It also states:
"Based on existing models, we expected to find a thin population of young stars at the very edge of the galactic disks we studied," he said. "But instead of finding just gas and newly formed stars at the edges of their disks, we also found a significant population of older stars along with the thin smattering of young stars and interstellar gas."
In short: we don't understand shit. :geek:
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest